There are a lot of different ways to define science, but perhaps one that everyone can agree on is that itâs a process by which: 1.knowledge about the natural world or a particular phenomenon is gathered, 2.a testable hypothesis is put forth concerning a natural, physical explanation for that phenomenon, 3.that hypothesis is then tested and either validated or falsified, 4.and an overarching framework â or scientific theory â is constructed to explain the hypothesis and that makes predictions about other phenomena, 5.which is then tested further, and either validated, in which case new phenomena to test are sought (back to step 3), or falsified, in which case a new testable hypothesis is put forth (back to step 2)â¦

The very definition of science and the use of the scientific method has been turned on its ear by the “enlightened” in our public schools and universities. One only need to look at “climate science” as a recent example of the bastardization of the use of the word.

3
posted on 12/24/2015 6:50:25 AM PST
by rarestia
(It's time to water the Tree of Liberty.)

That also goes for multi-verse, macro evolution and anthropogenic climate change. But at least we have consensus and peer review. Of course, it was consensus and peer review that turned Gallileo over to the inquisition. But hey, nobody’s perfect.

Yeah... I'm with you. The development of hypotheses on the basis of what has already been observed is a reasonable scientific pursuit even when the hypotheses are not yet falsifiable through experimentation.

Theories have survived at least some testing. This is just an untested “guess”, little more than a basic hypothesis. It shouldnt be elevated to the term theory. That terminology gives it an undeserved credibility level.

This has been known for quite some time. Also, nothing learned via the empirical method counts as absolute knowledge since unless you can study all phenomenon over all time and space you can't say for absolute certain that anything learned empirically counts as a law.

This has also been known for centuries.

The only thing that science has accomplished with regard to pure knowledge is to be able to say with high probability that if certain well run experiments are conducted then scientists can predict with high certainty what specific measured values will be.

Somehow this seemingly sketchy process has resulted in huge technological leaps throughout history through a combination of the scientific method, engineering, tinkering, and an occasional happy accident.

String Theory is in its infancy. It might very well be nonsense. Even though no one has yet come up with a practical experiment to test it, there are hints of what such an experiment might be like. My understanding is that the recent measurements at CERN have already ruled out some versions of String Theory so it seems some parts, at least on the edges, are testable.

I believe it’s called M-Theory because the mathematics are so beautiful in that they reduce to general relativity in the limit. It is very seductive. Mathematicians and mathematical physicists just cannot resist the allure.

Pretty terrible article, which gives credit to recent critics of String Theory but doesn't acknowledge the earliest and most courageous opponents who were Peter Voit and Lee Smolin.

It also goes a bit too far. String Theory is based on earlier ideas, which most certainly were science, it contains requirements that we know a unified theory must have [so it is limited by genuine scientific constraints] and it actually does make some falsifiable predictions, which, although they appear at energies we will probably never reach in terrestrial labs, might have consequences we can falsify or verify in other ways.

All-in-all an article typical of the lay press: long on drama, and very, very short of facts on the ground.

14
posted on 12/24/2015 7:41:52 AM PST
by FredZarguna
(Deathblow: "Not because of who you are, but because of different reasons altogether.")

Not sure I completely agree with the author. It wasn't that long ago that the Higgs Boson (God's) particle was nothing more than a theory. It could only become a falsifiable hypothesis after the LHC was operational and it could be empirically tested. To bitch and say we can't test string theory misses the point. If nothing else, things like this point to technologies that must be in place before we can perform a test.

15
posted on 12/24/2015 7:42:22 AM PST
by econjack
(I'm not bossy...I just know what you should be doing.)

The fact that string theory has not yet developed falsifiable hypotheses doesnât mean that it will never do so.

In other words, no matter how unlikely it might seem, this wacky set of ideas may eventually become a âscienceâ according to a strict Popperian definition.

Ergo, letâs give the string theoreticians a while to fool around with their crazy notions, then check back with them in about 100 years to see if theyâve been able to develop the requisite hypotheses.

...

Good post. As to those who so easily dismiss the hard work done by scientists and theoreticians, I think it makes them feel somehow superior.

18
posted on 12/24/2015 8:04:45 AM PST
by Moonman62
(The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.